ABSTRACT
With both integration theory (Rosamond 2000, Wiener and Diez 2004) and the new regionalism approach, or NRA (Söderbaum and Shaw 2003b) undergoing re-evaluation, the opportunity for mutual learning and cross-fertilisation between scholars of different regional organisations presents itself. No matter when they began, all processes of regionalisation in the contemporary global political economy can be understood as products of member state (or ‘member economy’) adaptations to globalisation, with particular dynamics dictated by the interplay of national interests, culture, norms and geopolitical context, and scholars need more convincing comparative studies of them (Hettne 2003, Laursen 2003). However, a conceptual framework to facilitate this process of comparison is lacking, with scholars usually obliged to follow either an international relations (IR)/ international political economy (IPE) approach or one derived from EU studies, but not to harness useful insights from each of these fields. The situation is made more complex by the fact that while many contemporary regions have their roots in the post-World War II period, others are more recent; some regions develop more overtly than others; and some have broad remits, while others are focused on a narrow range of issues. Thus, defining what it is to be a ‘region’ is notoriously difficult; indeed, without an acceptance that the ‘region’ is a dynamic and varied phenomenon, and hence that our attempts to deepen our comprehension of it must be grounded in an appreciation of diversity and change (Hettne 2002), we are unlikely to develop helpful theory.
